tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 2, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
that we've been waiting for, as if it's a normal thing that president elect would keep holding campaign rallies after the campaign was over, after the election. i mean, presidents definitely hold big public events, presidents all the way back to the beginning of their being presidents, they have done big public events for their own re-election efforts or to try to elect other candidates who they support in other elections, presidents who have done events after they're elect today sell the country on a specific idea, like supporting the or supporting the auto bailout. presidents do public event, but this tonight. this isn't something that we've had tonight. this was a campaign rally. this was trump holds first ral di sin
ly since election. this was a rally in support of donald trump. this was for no other purpose. it was not for an election, other candidate, not for a policy, not to get the country to do any specific thing, it was just a rally for him. and as a country, this is not something we have a tradition of. outside of qualm pains we're not a country who is actually to mass in the absence of any other imperative. apparently, now we're a country that does that. at least we did that tonight in cincinnati and we're told that this rally for the new president, for the president elect, this will be the first of many ramallies like this that he holds. that alone just covering that, rally since the election, that makes for a weird night. we have not heard from the president elect for three-and-a-half weeks since the election until tonight now that he has done this event, now we know what he's had on his mind, what he's wanted to talk about,
turns out what he really wanted to talk about all the time, how much he won the election by and also how terrible the media is. >> remember when they said, he cannot win north carolina, so we had just won ohio, iowa. and we had just won florida, breaking news, donald trump has won florida, then say whoa! and we won it big. but then the people back there, the extremely dishonest press -- [ boo ] -- right -- very dishonest people. how about when a major anchor who hosted a debate started crying when she realized that we
won. tears, no, tell me this isn't true. remember, you cannot get to be too sedative. remember when they said donald trump was going to lose to somebody i've never even heard of. he's going to lose to this guy. they go for weeks, texas is inplay. you turn on the television like, donald trump has won texas, you know. [ applause ] these are very very dishonest people. the bottom line is, we won. we won. we won big. >> we have not heard from him in three-and-a-half weeks since the election, but now we know what's been on his mind ever since that he's been waiting to talk to us about. joining us now is my friend chris hayes. i feel like i need to have
another reality check with you, thank you for being here. >> i'm glad to be here because i think i was so processing what i had just seen on my own show that i had a hard time putting words to. >> logistically, first of all, it was late. he was suppose to speak at 7:00, ended up eating most of your show. you watched it in real time. >> part of what -- look, this is something that i think became very evident very on, the man is who he is, temperament tally personality wise, people would talk about pivots, there would be this kind of intense desire from the republican establishment, media, to will him to be a different person. >> once he's elected he's going to be sobered and changed. >> that is not true. the campaign will continue for four years, the presidency will look different than it has in modern times, perhaps ever. it will look different than it
ever has. it will be this kind of, you know -- italy, you know, this kind of constant, every day is a national drama with him at the center. the thing you said like a rally to -- >> for him. >> yeah and to sort of pursue his vendettas. he's all new. he has a lot of the features kind of authorityian populace leaders, putin, victor in. >> that's what we're seeing during the campaign and no change. >> we saw the division, between like he wants to talk about the media and how much he won by. he wants to relive election night, which he did. i'll go back to the prompter, steve bannon's vision of america's first nationalism, new
idea logical core, circa 2005 and 2006 i was reporting on them imposing, which is like sort of get our troops out of the middle east, stop spending money there, shutdown the wall with immigrants, stop these trade deals, the question of what that looks like as a governing strategy, whether it's -- that's the big unanswered question right now. >> i do think that there's an interesting question, though, as to what's going on with the media, right. so, i mean, part of what you and i have to deal with, this is happening in our hours. he's the president elect, how much -- >> this is the first appearance. >> this is the first appearance. it's important what he says. there's been so much media sort of gnashing of teeth for whether or not trump was -- had too much of just camera put on him and that's, i think, there's a good argument to be had about that. i think there's good arguments
on both sides. the side that you should put the camera on him wins, now that he's president elect, you just put the camera on the president when he speaks. that feels different than him as a president as it does than anybody else. there's the question going on him attacking the media, what that means for the kind of journalistic coverage he's going to get. >> we know for today, the carrier factory, one of the investigative reporters, local reporter who had been looking into carrier was denied credentials. it looks like carriers were the ones that denied him credentials during his visit. >> that's not good. >> it was clear it wasn't them. >> he gets up, he goes after an anchor who hosted a debate who cried when -- i mean, to personally single out somebody, to intimidate somebody like that in the press, that's just. >> and you have emerging him to
get rid of the white house press core, all of these traditions might fall by the wayside. we don't know. he feels confident that he has a channel to talk to the people he needs to talk to, without the "dishonest media" he loves the media playing the fool. i think one of the things the press is in the middle of figures out, are you playing the role of the heal in the wrestling match to his face, even if you're mixing it up with him. there's this sort of psycho drama around him has been constructed, when he's fighting with the pretsz. when they're fighting with him over legitimate things which has happened often, it's still the spectacle of this kind of psycho drama, this kind of professional wrestling enterprise he has created. i mean, i know i spent time in italy, i studied there and i
have italian friends and relatives, he did do the same thing. it was constant soap opera around silivia and who was fighting with. most of the time he was fighting with the media, the other half of the media he owned, they were broadcasting silivia's message. >> the only thing he could not frame in the end was the child prosecution. thank you for staying there. >> any time. >> good to have you here. it's interesting in terms of how they are handling this coming out day for president elect. campaign rally, basically, without a campaign. they also had the president elect giver victory lap remarks today to a country who are about to spend 13 jobs to mexico. this is the coming out day for the new president elect. the first we've heard from him since the election, first we've heard from him in three-and-a-half weeks, they have been planning this return to the stage for him.
in the middle of all of that tonight, in this messaged day, this big day, he's back in the middle of that, we also got an interruption, we got a big new unrelated announcement, unexpectedly. trump has chosen retired marine general james mattis for secretary of defense. that's a big deal. secretary of defense, this is one of the biggies, this is huge news. or maybe not. after the washington post published that scoop tonight, the trump folks took it back, the trump transition spokesman tweeted out quickly, no, no, a decision has not been made with regard to the secretary of defense. okay. so the article is wrong, the choice has not been made, that big news would step over everything else they would try to convey today. then it was back on. then donald trump's son, who is involved in the transition at the highest levels, he tweeted,
mattis would be the choice. okay -- then he deleted the choice. okay, maybe it's not. the message of the day is vik i victory lap and then we have a second of defense they took it back, maybe we do and don't, tonight in cincinnati turns out we do have a secretary of defense after all. >> i don't want to tell you this because i want save the suspense for next week, so i will not tell you -- i refuse -- don't let it outside out of this room, you promise, raise your hand. promise. so i will not tell you that one of our great, great generals -- don't let it outside, right?
of course the press is very honest, they'll let it go. we've got about seven stations live. we're going to appoint mad dog mattis as our secretary of defense. [ applause ] but we're not announcing it until monday, so don't tell anybody. mad dog, he's great. he's great. >> marine general james mattis not formerly announced as the new administration's pick for the secretary of defense. also announced by the president elect as that news, which is really big news, right, that news was breaking and unbreaking and then breaking again tonight. i have to tell you msnbc reported some truly astonishing news about the other most high
profile job in the new administration about which the transition has yet to make an announcement. you've probably noticed there's been incredible amount of attention between mitt romney and the president elect, after mitt romney spent the whole campaign denouncing donald trump as a fraud and a con man and fundamentally dishonest person, it has been a real spectacle, musing about whether or not mitt romney might conceivably make a good secretary of state. the other named possible candidates, have been former mayor rudolph guiliani and former general david pe trtraeus literally on probation after pleading guilty to mishandling classified information and lying to the fbi officer to see if i'm cleared to
cross state lines. the three biggest jobs in the cabinet are attorney general, that willy alabama senator jeff sessions, secretary of defense, we learned that james mattis and canada, attorney general, secretary of defense, after all the attention to the romney thing, giuliani, petraeus, tonight msnbc reports that the secretary of state search is no longer confined to those candidates that have been previously named by the trump folks. believe it or no, msnbc reports there are two new men being considered for the secretary of state job. are you ready? recognize either of these two guys? if you don't, the good news is that even though you are going to have to memorize their names, you're only going to have to memorize one job title between them because msnbc reports tonight that the two new people in contention for secretary of state are the current ceo of
exxonmobil, rex tillerson, and the former ceo of exxonmobil, lee raymond. really? joining us now on short notice, i should say, because we just got in this news. tom stier is president and founder of nextgen chimt. thank you for your time particularly on short notice. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> i have not been reporting on every name that's been floated for every job including the secretary of state job. but when the current and former ceo of exxonmobil were reported tonight as possibilities, i feel flabbergasted. i wanted to get your response to this news. >> i think this is completely chilling news. the idea that we with turn over the secretary of state to the head of, the head of or the former head of the largest private oil and gas company in the world, a company which is a partner with vladimir putin in
russia, which is currently being investigated criminally for misleading the american public about climate change is something that should scare every american. >> how do you see the issue of climate change, the issue of exxonmobil's business? how do you see that fitting into international diplomacy? obviously if we were talking about energy secretary, this might be a different discussion. this would, i think, flabbergast different people. but how does exxon function in international relations? >> the largest agreement ever was the paris agreement on climate last year. 194 countries agreed that we needed to control greenhouse gas emissions for the safety and welfare of people around the world. to basically throw that agreement away, to say we're going to follow the lead of international oil, the interests of international oil and vladimir putin is to take
american leadership of the world and oppose it to 193 other countries. it's to isolate us and a chilling prospect. >> he wrote a private empire about exxon, which is one of the best books i read in the last decade. one of the things i found absolutely striking and sort of paradigm changing for me, his portrayal of exxon, was that they basically -- if they look around the world at their international interests and their basic take on it as a company is, you know, governments come and go. countries come and go, but exxon is forever. international oil interests transcend countries, outlast countries, are bigger and richer than most of the countries we have to deal with. they are the a private empire. that's the thing that i wanted to talk to you as an expert on climate issues and the politics of these things, that's the part
of it that i feel i can't grasp. how a company that sees itself as bigger than countries could represent our country in any way that made any sense for the people of the united states of america. >> the idea that a company based in the united states of america would put itself ahead of the interests of its fellow citizens i find shocking and awful. the idea that somehow an oil company has interests that go further than the interests and are deeper than the interests of the american people, i find shocking. and the idea that they can ignore science and proceed to line their own pockets and make as much money as possible, regardless of the impact on their fellow citizens, i find shocking. >> tom steyer, founder and president of nextgen climate. appreciate it. that news tonight from msnbc, reporting that the secretary of state job is wide open, that the names that you've heard before tonight are not necessarily the only names in contention and
do you recognize this foot? do you recognize that? see right now that smudge. do you recognize this very famous foot? the very famous blotch of blood on that ankle? the owner of this very famous foot and bloody ankle, i'm telling you, explains what went wrong today on what was supposed to be a big political victory lap through the heartland. he explains why it didn't work. that story is next.
the new england patriots football team used to be called the boston patriots. and while they were base in boston, they played at a whole bunch of different fields including fenway park. they never had a regular home stadium when they were the boston patriots. but in the early '70s they got a stadium in a suburban town outside boston called foxborough. nobody thought they should change their names to the foxborough patriots because even till today nobody can spell foxborough. they stopped being the boston patriots, but they started being, instead, the new england patriots. that made sense not just for spelling purposes because new england is easier to spell than foxborough.
it made sense because they're the only nfl team in the whole region of new england. now, the red sox baseball team, they still call themselves the boston red sox. they do have a home field in boston where they play. but like the patriots, the red sox are the only pro team of their kind in all of new england. they're the only major league baseball team in the whole region. and as a person who lives in new england, i'm a massachusetts resident, i can tell you culturally it's a bonding thing that there's just the red sox and just the patriots for all of new england. it's a defining thing about that whole region of the country that if we're rooting in baseball, we root for the red sox and in football we root for the patriots. that one small thing that holds that region of the united states together culturally. even though both of those teams are headquartered and play all their home games in massachusetts. i think the desire of the other new england states who love
their pro teams, right, but they know that massachusetts is home field, right, i think the desire of the other new england states to exert a little ownership, to stake a little claim to these beloved new england pro sports teams, i think that desire on the part of nonmassachusetts new england states, i think that might have played a little bit of a role in one really, really, really stupid thing that rhode island did in 2010. there's a famous former red sox pitcher named curt schilling and curt schilling had retired from baseball and decided what he wanted to do was start a video game company. as of 2010, they hadn't yet released a single game. they weren't making any money. but they were headed up by this famous pitcher from the red sox. and they were operating out of massachusetts. they had their headquarters for this video game company in maynard massachusetts. the state of rhode island pounced. they decided they would steel this company out of massachusetts.
they would lure curt schilling to leave maynard and instead plant their roots in rhode island. in order to get that company out of massachusetts and into rhode island, they threw a ton of money at him. the state did. the taxpayers of the state of rhode island took on loan guarantees of $75 million. so this company is borrowing money. the taxpayers of the state of rhode island said we'll guarantee your loan. if you can't pay it back, we'll be on the hook. $75 million to bring this one baseball pitcher's video game company over to their state. and it was a terrible idea. it was a disaster. the company did release one video game once and then they went bankrupt. and they fired everybody who worked for them. they got all that money in rhode island in 2010 by the spring of 2012 they were out of business, bankrupt, employing zero people.
and the taxpayers were left holding the bag. ent wally there were lawsuits to try to get some of the money back, but those suits were able to recoup like a couple million here, a couple million dollars there. in the end, bottom line, rhode island got zero company, zero jobs, zero former red sox pitchers to claim as a business tycoon or whatever. they got no company, no jobs and the taxpayers of the state were on the hook for tens the of millions of dollars in this freebie money that they gave to this pitcher and his dumb failed company. incidentally that same pitcher says he wants to run against elizabeth warren for her u.s. senate seat. why not? you know, the public sector's been great to him already. is there free money when you run for the senate, too? this kind of thing happens all over, though. one of the stories that wisconsin governor scott walker dragged into his presidential run like a big old paint can tied on to his bumper with
string was the story of how he also found ways to give tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to give those tens of millions of dollars away to companies that were either moving into his state or that he wanted to keep from moving out of his state. scott walker had a particular knack as wisconsin governor for giving taxpayer money to companies that would take the money and then leave the state anyway. it didn't help him that companies he did that for tended to be run by his campaign contributors. it especially did not help when local reporters in wisconsin discovered they pocketed the taxpayer money, then they outsourced their jobs to another country anyway and then after the fact, after all of that, after they took all this money from scott walker and then fired their wisconsin workers, after they did that, scott walker then gave them more money. gave them more wisconsin taxpayer money.
gave them a second grant since they'd been so good. this is a thing that politicians do now. it's not actually a republican or a democrat, not a very partisan thing. politicians do this all over the country. any time you hear some midwestern governor waxing rhapsodic ask them how this works in their state, ask them if they've been part of these schemes. they do it all over. credit where credit's due. during the presidential campaign, this was actually one of the economic arguments that was made by donald trump that made some sense. and i'm not kidding. i'm not being sarcastic. the arguments he made about that particular scam in policymaking, there was something to it. >> i've watched as politicians talked about stopping countries from leaving. here's a zero interest loan you don't have to pay. here's tax abatement. doesn't work, folks.
they have money. they want to go out, they want to move to another country and because our politicians are so dumb they want to sell their product to us and not have any retribution, not have any consequence. all of that's over. >> all of that's over. our politicians are so dumb. they want to give these companies a zero interest loan, you don't have to pay this, you want to give them a tax abatement. that's so over, that's so dumb. that is exactly what donald trump announced today at the carrier plant in indiana where he did his big victory lap about saving jobs. he had campaigned threw his entire campaign on how he was going to stop companies from shipping jobs overseas. specifically he complained on how he'd stop carrier from shipping jobs overseas and a very specific way he'd stop them in doing it. not one of the dumb ways that other politicians had tried. he had his own way and his way will work. >> i will call the head of carrier and i will say, i hope
you enjoy your new building, i hope you enjoy your stay in mexico. every single air conditioning unit that you build and send across our border, you're going to pay a 35% tax on that unit. you're going to pay a damn tax. if companies want to fire their workers and leave for mexico or other parts of the world, there will be a tax of 35% for any product they want to ship into this country. we will charge them a 35% tax where they want to ship their products back into the united states. and they won't leave. believe me. those companies will not leave. and if you think you're going to make an air conditioning unit, carrier, you know about carrier, they're moving to mexico. thing they're going to make air conditioners and send them right back into our country. no tax, no tariff, 1400 people gone.
not going to happen. because i'm going to just say very simply, you got a 35% tax to pay. with me, they have repercussions. okay? with me, they have repercussions. with me, we inform them that if you move, you're going to pay a 35% tax on every single air conditioner that pours across our now very secure borders. >> with him, it turns out they don't have repercussions. none of that is what he did. there's not going to be some new tax on carrier air conditioners being shipped from mexico, first of all. second of all, those units still are going to get shipped back to the united states from mexico because carrier is still sending 1300 jobs down there. and shutting down their huntington, indiana, plant in order to do it. and third, what donald trump did to convince the company to keep some of the jobs here that they
were going to ship to mexico, what he actually did was think curt schilling video game studio. that's what he did. he got mike pence to write them a check from the general fund of the state of indiana. he put indiana taxpayers, state taxpayers on the hook for $7 million that's going to be paid to this company. even though they're still sending 1300 jobs to mexico. trump got elected for invaing against that, saying you give these companies zero interest loans, tax abatements, all these dumb politicians do that. that's dumb. that's a terribly stupid thing that all of our terrible politicians have done in the past. it would not happen anymore under him. he would play hard ball. with him there would be repercussions. the only repercussion for carrier was they got $7 million in taxpayer money while still moving jobs to mexico and closing a plant in indiana. that's what he took his victory lap for today in indiana, for
america. we'd like them to say that they don't have a legal authority to kill americans on american soil. i don't think that they have the legal authority nor the constitutional prerogative to do this and they just need to admit to that. >> rand paul did that for 13 hours. the day after rand paul did that for 13 hours, this 13-hour filibuster in 2013, he got an answer to his question. the attorney general wrote to him and answered him. quote, does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer to that question is no. sincerely, eric h. holder jr. two sentences. two sentences in total in response to 13 hours of him asking the question. sometimes in politics the shorter the message, the bigger the impact. or at least the bigger the drama. and that happened today, too,
behold the great kremlin palace. today emerging from behind those gigantic gold plated doors -- wait till we get those at the white house -- was vladimir putin. in his state of the nation address. he looked forward to mutually beneficial relations with the next american administration. he also said that the new u.s./russian relationship he's looking forward to could only work on the basis of equality, mutual respect for interests and noninterference in the internal affairs of each other. noninterference in each other's internal affairs like each other's elections? in october, the month before our presidential election, the department of homeland security and the director of national intelligence officially and
formally declared that russia was meddling in our election by, among other things, hacking into the democratic party's servers. then right after the election, the head of the nsa put a pretty fine point on it. he publicly affirmed unequivocally that russia, yes, did hack into the u.s. election in order to achieve a specific result. >> there shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's mind. this was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance. this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. this was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect. >> conscious effort by a nation state, russia, to attempt to achieve a specific effect in our election. that's what we've got publicly from the u.s. government about russia messing with our presidential election this year, which is honestly profoundly unsettling even at this distance. it still raises the question about what we as a country are going to do about it.
but now today we got an amazing new mysterious plot twist. and it came from the democratic senators who are on the intelligence committee. look at this. they today released this cryptic very short open letter to the president. the whole thing is three sentences long. one of them is just "thanks." quote, dear mr. president, we believe there is additional information concerning the russian government and the u.s. election that should be declassified and released to the public. we're conveying specifics through classified channels. thank you for your attention to this important matter. and that's it. signed by seven democratic senators on the intelligence committee. what is this additional information concerning the russian government and the u.s. election that they want declassified? they say they'resending specifics through classified channels. what is this about? we can report tonight that the republican senators on the
intelligence committee were also invited to add their names to this very short, very intriguing letter but all the republicans declined. the architect of this letter is oregon senator ron wyden. today we spoke with senator widen's office to basically try to pry some more information out of them on this to try to figure out what this is about, but that was a total no go. they were 100 prgs tight lipped with us. whatever they're referring to here is classified, they're keeping it classified but they're letting us know through this open letter that they have sent it to the president and they want him to talk about it to the rest of us. what's this about? what could this be about? joining us now is michael mcfaul, professor of political science at stanford university. nice to see you. thanks for being with us tonight. >> sure. thanks for having me. >> what do you make of this three-sentence letter from these senators tonight? what's your reaction to this? >> well, first of all, i don't
know the intelligence that they're referring to, right? i've been out of the government for a couple of years. but it's rather unprecedented that they would go public to ask the executive branch to declassify information like this. i can't remember ever that happening when i was in the government. it obviously means that they have read intelligence because they have clearances that is deeply disturbing about what russia did during our election and while the president, president obama is still at the white house, they want to get that information out to the american people. i could speculate about different hypothesis about it but it seems to me it must be something serious. they wouldn't do it otherwise. >> seems to me two possibilities here. one, they know something that is so materially different than what has been disclosed so far by the head of the nsa, by the director of national intelligence, homeland security director, that it will change the conversation and really sort of wake people up to the magnitude of what russia did here. the other possibility is that they're frustrated that there
hasn't been more of a public response to what the government has already said about russian intervention in the election and they're hoping to keep the story going or at least draw more attention to it by getting some more information out there even if it's not materially different. on that latter point, have you been surprised that there hasn't been more of a reaction in the public and in our political system to what we know about what russia did? >> yes, of course. i think -- i mean, i'm so glad you read that statement by president putin because that's a statement they've been reading for 30 or 40 years, by the way. it goes back to soviet times this noninterference clause. and already we do know that they intervened. i mean, there's no doubt that they hacked the dnc and stole that information from a party and then that had political consequences because of what wikileaks did with it. and because of the partisan electoral nature of the debate before the election, we could never talk about the national security implications of this in
a serious way, but now is the right time to do it. i'm glad they're putting pressure on the administration. i know they didn't want to do it. the white house did not want to do it during the election because they, ironically, if you think about what happened over with the fbi, but they did not want to put their thumb on the scale one way or the other in the electoral process. but now it's over. we should be able to know what these representatives know and then make our own decisions about what happened with the russian interference. >> to be clear, you're saying the white house din want to talk about this more publicly during the election because they felt like it would essentially be intervening on hillary clinton's behalf in the election because it would be implicating russia in trying to help trump win? >> correct. >> dramatic stuff. michael mcfaul, appreciate your time tonight sir, thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> that's kind of a dramatic revelation, isn't it? i'm that's a dramatic revelation
isn't it? i'm not sure if that's been reported elsewhere, but we will see what becomes of the new administration and the russian government, but what we know already, even without new disclosures which have been asked for by these democratic senators, what we know already about the way russia tried to help trump win is something that we haven't reckoned with as all at citizens, let alone as a political system. i feel like this is step one in a 50-step process. we'll be right back. le you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin.
do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz.
of course they also won the electoral college. it should be pointed out that all the smack talk about polls and the polling being wrong, you average the national polls in terms of what the national lead was for hillary clinton heading into election day, the national average of national polls that hillary clinton was leading nationally by about 2 points, those polls were right. she's leading nationally by two points. awesome! the first rule of being a viking. is that teamwork is important. remember to do the little things. help each other out. and the second rule of being a viking. there's more than one way to win.
today president obama became the first u.s. president to publicly support expanding the military draft to include women. the military, of course, opened combat roles to women late last year. once that happened, the next question was what about the draft? would the draft include women as well? quoting the president's national security council, goal, as old barriers for military service are being removed, we support registering women for service. it makes sense, for women to register for selective service just as men must. the timing on that, it's kind of fascinating timing. it's not an accident. this week, tuesday of this week,
congress dropped a measure in a defense bill that would have required well to register for the draft. military times reporting that conservatives in the house and senate took that out of the defense bill on tuesday of this week, now two days later, president obama and the pentagon have come out in favor of leaving that in. women in the draft. if women are in combat roles, women should be able to be drafted too. the president now openly supports women registering for the draft with the backing of the pentagon. of course the president does not have much time left for policy matters like this. he knows he can't necessarily get something like this done before he leaves, particularly if congress is opposed. but he is sending this message, don't go backwards now. my sweethearts gone sayonara.
got control of the military, you can't be secretary of defense if you were on active duty in the last seven years. congress would have to pass a waiver to that law in order to approve him for that job. we've got a little bit of breaking news. democratic u.s. senator kirsten gillibrand has just put out a statement saying while i deeply oppose mattis, i will oppose a waiver. i will not vote for an exception to this rule. we'll see if that catches on, but that could be a big deal for a big nomination. that does it for us. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. now. >> good evening, chris. can you come over? >> congress voted for one exception to this rule in 1950. and what they did, they said, this better never happen again. >> right, it's like a signing statement, saying we're doing this now, but it should never happen again.